linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mv643xx_eth: Fix a possible deadlock upon ifdown

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:20:31 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	lkundrak@...sk
Cc:	buytenh@...tstofly.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mv643xx_eth: Fix a possible deadlock upon ifdown

From: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
Date: Fri,  4 Jan 2013 15:17:43 +0100

> @@ -943,7 +943,7 @@ static int txq_reclaim(struct tx_queue *txq, int budget, int force)
>  	struct netdev_queue *nq = netdev_get_tx_queue(mp->dev, txq->index);
>  	int reclaimed;
>  
> -	__netif_tx_lock(nq, smp_processor_id());
> +	__netif_tx_lock_bh(nq);

I still don't understand why this change is necessary.

The TX reclaim function is invoked in software interrupt context in
all of the places where this lockdep warning might matter.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/